DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Vs. Private Sector : an Examination of Neo-Liberal Ideology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Vs. Private Sector : an Examination of Neo-Liberal Ideology Munich Personal RePEc Archive Public vs. private sector : an examination of neo-liberal ideology Khan, Iram Auditor General of Pakistan 2006 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/13443/ MPRA Paper No. 13443, posted 18 Feb 2009 09:52 UTC Public vs. Private Sector – An Examination of Neo- Liberal Ideology1 Dr. Iram Khan2 Abstract The paper reviews the theoretical underpinnings of the debate on the superiority of the public or private sector, and supports theoretical perspectives with help from empirical literature on the subject. The theoretical part covers issues relating to public choice, property rights and principal-agents relationship, while the empirical evidence includes review of literature on macroeconomic, microeconomic and welfare impacts of privatisation. The paper finds that despite numerous studies and unending discussions, the debate on the superiority of the public or private sector has remained inconclusive and is likely to remain so in the future. Notwithstanding the practical difficulties of making this assessment, the paper concludes that this debate is more ideological rather than empirical, since it is not possible to determine the superiority of one over the other through case studies, which can only be selective in nature. 1. INTRODUCTION The last two decades have seen a wave of economic reforms designed to reduce the role of the public sector and expand the role of the market (Cook & Kirkpatrick, 1988). While the boundaries of the private sector are rather clearly delineated, those of the public sector are relatively obscure. In the public-private sector continuum, government departments and ministries lie on one side of the pole with the profit-oriented commercial private firms on the other. The remaining enterprises lie somewhere in between. Public enterprises, called both ‘fish and fowl’ by Laporte & Ahmed (1989), having a mix of commercial and social objectives, are represented somewhere in the middle of the continuum. Who is superior – public or the private sector? This has been an unending debate. It has gained more importance after the wave of privatisations since early 1980s, in which the dominant motive was ideological rather than economic efficiency (Cook & Kirkpatrick, 1988). Privatisation, therefore, has its roots deeply embedded in the ideological foundations of the neo-right that perceives market as consistently and wholly benign 1 The paper has also been hosted by Eldis at the following link: http://www.eldis.org/go/topics/resource- guides/poverty&id=23915&type=Document. 2 Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Production & Special Initiatives, Block A, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of organisations or institutions with which he may be or has been associated. The usual disclaimer applies. e-mail: [email protected]. 1 (Martin, 1993), and finds the private sector inherently superior to the public sector. It believes in the “superiority of free market form of social organisation over the forms of social organisations of Keynesian welfare state” and sees free market as “an unambiguous advance on welfare state social democracy – as a provider of economic efficiency . .” (Taylor, 1983: 6). Two schools of thought represent the public vs. private debate. The public interest school believes that society has some common interests whom the state is competent to identify and serve. The private interest school, on the other hand, believes in man as a rational economic actor who will instinctively maximise his personal utility. This school accepts it as a morally valuable approach to life. Important underlying notions behind this debate are concepts of public choice, property rights and principal-agents relationships. The rest of the paper is as follows. The next section discusses the theoretical underpinnings of public vs. private debate and examines the validity of arguments offered by the two schools of thought. Section 3 briefly reviews literature on the subject and tests arguments on the altar of empirical research, with section 4 concluding the discussion. 2. Public-Private Debate: Theoretical Perspectives 2.1 Public Choice Public choice theory has strongly influenced public-private debate. The private interest school finds state restrictive and deterministic of public life, thus encouraging a dependency syndrome (Mackintosh, 1992). It assumes man as a ‘rational actor’ who has well-formed and logical preferences. He is a “rational utility maximiser” (Dunleavy, 1991: 31) who ensures maximum possible benefits and minimum costs. Using these presumptions, Downs (1967) describes a public official as an individual who would optimise his benefits, and his benefits are maximised in terms of pay, power and prestige when his organisation grows and he maximises his “budget” (Niskanen, 1973). Following the same logic, all public organisations compete for more “funding, staffing, policy ‘territory’ or other resources” (Downs, 1967: 53). Unless an official has to pay the cost of adding more personnel, he will be motivated to increase the size of his organisation indefinitely. Niskanen (1973) finds public officials as inherent maximisers yearning to be at the top of “virility index” - more resources they grab, better their performance on the index. He equates this behaviour as logical, and analogous to that of the owners and managers of private firms. 2 Adding to this is the dimension of exit and voice in which citizens acting as buyers/ consumers indicate their preferences by increasing or decreasing (entry or exit) their purchases (Van Mierlo, 1986). However, most of the government agencies work as monopolies giving public no right to choose. The non-excludable principle or the non- rivalry property, therefore, does not apply in this case with the result that the citizens can not ‘exit’ from the trap of state service monopoly, whatever the quantity and quality of provision. Likewise they can not ‘voice’ their dissatisfaction, and even if they do, they are ineffective and impotent. By privatising public provision agencies and introducing competition, they will have the option to reveal their individual preferences to achieve Pareto efficiency. To quote Atkinson (1989: 17)3, “it requires no government legislation, consumers committees or thousands of letters to GEC or Marks and Spencer for an improvement in customer service. The consumer cracks the whip and the economically constrained come running.” So there is a need to introduce market principles and competition in them and end their monopolistic nature. An analysis of public choice theory shows that the rational economic man or homo economicus is not a universal truth. Brennan and Buchanan (1985)4 put three arguments as to what is wrong with the idea behind homo economicus. Their first argument is that the model is generalised and presents only one motive, while the real motivation is far more complex and variable. Second, all one should assume from this theory is that individuals consider their interests, whatever they may be, to be different from those of others. They are not necessarily selfish or wealth maximisers. Christ, mother Teresa, kamikaze pilots and voluntary organisations are proof of that. His third defence is that since homo economicus seeks to maximise his economic well being, logically he should also advance his personal political interests. But we find that he does not always act like that. These arguments show that rational economic man or homo economicus does not sufficiently describe the human behaviour which is far more complex and intricate. This has been supported from the results of more than a thousand investigations by Lane (1991) who found that when basic standard of living has been achieved by members of a society, economic factors become far less important. 3 Quoted in Saunders, P., & Harris, C., 1994, Privatisation and Popular Capitalism, Buckingham: Open University Press. 4 Cited in Stretton, H., & Orchard, L., 1994, Public Goods, Public Enterprises, Public Choice: Theoretical Foundations of the Contemporary Attack on Government, NY: St. Matrin’s Press. 3 Public enterprises have also been criticised for their monopolistic nature. This means that they have no rival and can not be excluded. This presumption is also partially true. There are certain kinds of service provisions which are monopolistic in nature whether they remain in the public or private sector. In case of UK, the state had to live with monopoly in regional water companies due to the nature of service provided by them. However, in most of the cases, the principle of “contestable markets” ensures that even monopoly, whether in the public or private sector, would act as a potential threat as if working in a competitive environment, otherwise, competitors will enter the arena (Boettke, 1994). 2.2 Property Rights Notion of property rights is one of the most important factors in public-private debate. This is evident from the fact that in countries where property rights do not exist or are ambiguously defined, privatisation has not progressed at a good pace (Van Brabanti, 1995). Property rights are important in explaining the use of resources in terms of both allocative and productive efficiency of firms (Vickers & Yarrow, 1988). Boycko et al (1997) view this as a system of control of rights and cash flow rights. Efficiency requires that these should be aligned. When major industries were nationalised in the post World War era, the idea was that profit motive had
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Role of State Owned Enterprises in India's Economic Development
    Workshop on State-Owned Enterprises in the Development Process Paris, 4 April 2014 OECD Conference Centre, Room 4 ROLE OF STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISES IN INDIA’S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT by Professor Ram Kumar Mishra This paper serves as background material for the Workshop on SOEs in the Development Process taking place in Paris on 4 April 2014. It was prepared by Professor Ram Mishra from the Institute of Public Enterprise in India, working as a consultant for the OECD Secretariat. The opinions and views expressed and arguments employed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect or represent the official views of the OECD or of the governments of its member countries. Role of State Owned Enterprises in India’s Economic Development R K Mishra . Economic Development has been the prime concern of the Indian state since the inception of India’s independence in 1947. India was born independent with mass poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and disease. It faced the challenge of growth and change to catch up with the developed countries. It had to decide on vital issues such as its development strategy for the future, the industrial policy it had to adopt to achieve the goals of the development strategy, the corporate action that had to follow as a consequence of such industrial policy, the need for setting up the State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) as an instrument of implementing the public policy and to provide a fillip to the private sector to make India a mixed economy. The purpose of this paper is to narrate, in brief, a historic overview of evolving development strategies and industrial policies in India, discuss at length the experience over recent decades with assigning SOEs with public policy objectives in pursuit of developmental goals, focus on state-controlled alternatives to SOEs in detail and, finally based on the Indian experience outline lessons for other countries that have embarked on the path of economic development.
    [Show full text]
  • IIF Database Glossary
    The Institute of International Finance Glossary for IIF Economic Databases Definitions for Downloadable Codes January 2019 3 Table of Contents I. NATIONAL ACCOUNTS AND EMPLOYMENT .................................................... 3 A. GDP AT CONSTANT PRICES .......................................................................................... 3 1. Expenditure Basis .................................................................................................... 3 2. Output Basis ............................................................................................................. 4 3. Hydrocarbon Sector ................................................................................................. 5 B. GDP AT CURRENT PRICES ............................................................................................ 6 C. GDP DEFLATORS.......................................................................................................... 8 D. INVESTMENT AND SAVING ............................................................................................ 9 E. EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS ...................................................................................... 9 II. TRADE AND CURRENT ACCOUNT ..................................................................... 11 A. CURRENT ACCOUNT ................................................................................................... 11 B. TERMS OF TRADE ....................................................................................................... 14 III.
    [Show full text]
  • Institutional Change in Market-Liberal State Capitalism
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics ten Brink, Tobias Working Paper Institutional change in market-liberal state capitalism. An integrative perspective on the development of the private business sector in China MPIfG Discussion Paper, No. 11/2 Provided in Cooperation with: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (MPIfG), Cologne Suggested Citation: ten Brink, Tobias (2011) : Institutional change in market-liberal state capitalism. An integrative perspective on the development of the private business sector in China, MPIfG Discussion Paper, No. 11/2, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/45622 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence.
    [Show full text]
  • Three-Sector Structure of the National Economy of Russia
    Asian Social Science; Vol. 10, No. 20; 2014 ISSN 1911-2017 E-ISSN 1911-2025 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Three-Sector Structure of the National Economy of Russia I. Sh. Khasanov1 1 Kazan Federal University, Russian Federation Correspondence: I. Sh. Khasanov, Kremliovskaya str. 18, Kazan, 420008, Russian Federation. E-mail: [email protected] Received: June 30, 2014 Accepted: July 29, 2014 Online Published: September 28, 2014 doi:10.5539/ass.v10n20p217 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n20p217 Abstract The main objective of the article is to determine the changes in the income and expenditure of the national economy of Russia from 1961 to 2009. To solve this problem, the author applied research methodology of the economic system-a three-sector static equilibrium income and expenses using a statistical system of national accounts. As a result, on the basis of the methodology found an association between income and expenditure of the three sectors (economic activities) of the national economy: the production of products and services for production purposes, the production of consumer goods and production of financial and credit services. Keywords: static equilibrium in the economy, the structure of the national economy, sectors of economy, gross domestic product, income and expenses 1. Introduction When dividing the economy into three sectors, all business entities engaged in production of goods and services on the territory of Russia are taken into account. The state sector refers to the set of entities that are controlled by the state through federal government bodies and regional government bodies of the Federation, the municipal sector-to the set of entities that are controlled by local governments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Strategic Role of the Private Sector in Transforming the Real Economy Towards an Inclusive, Green and Circular Future
    DESA Working Paper No. 169 ST/ESA/2020/DWP/169 JULY 2020 Beyond the Business Case: The Strategic Role of the Private Sector in Transforming the Real Economy Towards an Inclusive, Green and Circular Future Author: Sumi Han, Division for Sustainable Development Goals, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs ABSTRACT Research suggests that achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can open up market opportu- nities worth USD 12 trillion in the four largest sectors that represent 60 per cent of real economy – food and agriculture; cities; energy and materials; and health and well-being. While the concept of the SDGs creating a win-win situation for all is growing increasingly trendy, further evidence needs to be accumulated to better chart the important discourse on the private sector’s engagement with the SDGs. To this end, this paper aims to shed light on three questions: (i) How is the private sector currently engaging with the SGDs in these sectors?; (ii) What are the key areas of opportunities in which companies can foster long-term value in sup- port of sustainable development?; and (iii) What transformations are needed to enhance the contributions of the private sector? Noting the shift towards a more inclusive, green and circular future requires policy, institutional, technological and human capabilities and political will, this paper provides concrete policy re- commendations on some of the first steps required to move towards such transformations. JEL Classification: F63, I11, O13, O18 Keywords: private sector; sustainable development; food and agriculture; cities; energy; health; well-being Sustainable Development Goals: 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 17 Disclaimer: The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations.
    [Show full text]
  • THE THREE SECTOR SOLUTION Delivering Public Policy in Collaboration with Not-For-Profits and Business
    THE THREE SECTOR SOLUTION Delivering public policy in collaboration with not-for-profits and business THE THREE SECTOR SOLUTION Delivering public policy in collaboration with not-for-profits and business EDITED BY JOHN R. BUTCHER AND DAVID J. GILCHRIST Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Acton ACT 2601, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at press.anu.edu.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title: The three sector solution : delivering public policy in collaboration with not-for-profits and business / David Gilchrist (editor) ; John Butcher (editor). ISBN: 9781760460389 (paperback) 9781760460396 (ebook) Series: ANZSOG series. Subjects: Nonprofit organizations--Political aspects. Nonprofit organizations--Government policy. Public-private sector cooperation--Government policy. Public administration. Other Creators/Contributors: Gilchrist, David, editor. Butcher, John, editor. Australia and New Zealand School of Government. Dewey Number: 361.763 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design and layout by ANU Press. This edition © 2016 ANU Press Contents Figures . vii Tables . ix Abbreviations . xi Acknowledgements . xv Contributors . xvii Foreword . xxvii Contextualising the Imperative of Cross‑Sector Working 1 . Introduction . 3 David J . Gilchrist and John R . Butcher 2 . Three Sectors, One Public Purpose . 23 Peter Shergold Part 1. Cross‑Sector Working: The rhetoric and the reality Overview . 35 Meredith Edwards 3 . From New Public Management to New Public Governance: The implications for a ‘new public service’ .
    [Show full text]
  • Privatization, Democracy, and the State in India
    Privatization, Democracy, and the State in India Alka Sapat Florida Atlantic University Paper prepared for the Anti-Essentialism Conference, March 2-3, 2007, Hollywood Beach, Ft. Lauderdale. Introduction Several countries underwent major transformations of their economies in the last two decades. The most important shift globally, particularly in developing countries has been to move towards a market-based economy and the phenomenon of globalization. From various treatises on the subject ranging from “Jihads to McWorlds” (Barber 1995) to “Lexuses and Olive Trees” (Friedman 2000) and ‘flat worlds’ (Friedman 2005), globalization has become a household word given the attention from scholars, journalists, and the populace at large. Apart from being the mot du jour, globalization, its causes and its consequences, evokes strong emotions and debate by both its proponents and opponents alike (Naisbitt 1994; Farazmand 1999). Lumped together, sometimes almost synonymously is the phenomenon of privatization. Privatization, like globalization, has also received its fair share of attention, from its supporters and detractors. On the one hand, privatization purports to unleash economic freedoms and allow private initiative and enterprise. On the other hand, however, privatization has been critiqued for its essentialist notions of efficiency and rationality and for undermining democracy and community (Farazmand 1999; Lindblom, 1977; Heilbroner 1990; Korten 1995). In particular, some scholars have argued that market forces in the form of multinational corporations frequently aid repressive regimes (Cottam 1979) and often cause local people to loose control of their communities (Mele 1997, Korten 1995). I add to this debate by examining in particular, the impact of privatization on democracy in India.
    [Show full text]
  • From Dirigisme to Realism: Chinese Industrial Policy in the Era of Globalisation Jean-François Huchet
    From Dirigisme to Realism: Chinese Industrial Policy in the Era of Globalisation Jean-François Huchet To cite this version: Jean-François Huchet. From Dirigisme to Realism: Chinese Industrial Policy in the Era of Globalisa- tion. Xavier Richet, Violène Delteil, Patrick Dieuaide. Strategies of Multinational Corporations and Social Regulations, Springer-Verlag, pp.57-76, 2014, 978-3-642-41368-1. 10.1007/978-3-642-41369- 8_4. hal-01325264 HAL Id: hal-01325264 https://hal-inalco.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01325264 Submitted on 2 Jun 2016 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. From Dirigisme to Realism: Chinese Industrial Policy in the Era of Globalisation Jean-François Huchet Professor, INALCO-Langues'O, Sorbonne Paris Cité The 2012 "Fortune 500" classification of the world’s largest companies includes 73 Chinese firms (32 for France and 68 for Japan), whereas there were none only 15 years ago.1 Meanwhile, Chinese firms are increasing their overseas operations with nearly $60 billion of foreign direct investment per year, on average since 2008, compared to less than $1 billion annually before 2000. Fifteen years ago, Chinese exports were mainly composed of primary products and goods with a low technological content.
    [Show full text]
  • Gross National Happiness-Based Economic Growth Recommendations for Private Sector Growth Consistent with Bhutanese Values
    Gross National Happiness-Based Economic Growth Recommendations for Private Sector Growth Consistent with Bhutanese Values Allen Koji Ukai 2016 Master in Public Policy Candidate Submitted March 29th, 2016 Updated May 30th, 2016 Submitted to: Ryan Sheely, Faculty Advisor/Seminar Leader Harvard Kennedy School Kesang Wangdi, Deputy Secretary General Bhutan Chamber of Commerce This Policy Analysis Exercise (PAE) reflects the views of the author and should not be viewed as representing the views of the PAE's external client (the Bhutan Chamber of Commerce & Industry), its interviewees, nor those of Harvard University or any of its faculty. It is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Public Policy Table of Contents List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Economic Development According to Gross National Happiness ................................................................ 4 Gross Domestic Product, Its Implications, and Its Shortcomings .............................................................. 4 Gross National Happiness and Its Impact within Bhutan .......................................................................... 5 Bhutan’s Underdeveloped Private Sector .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Private Sector and Development Effectiveness - Discussion Paper for Tudcn Members
    THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS - DISCUSSION PAPER FOR TUDCN MEMBERS - THE ROLE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS Although this subject has been little explored until recently, the aid environment is undergoing profound change and is now seeking growing corporate involvement. This paper aims to identify the main issues and challenges related to the role of the private sector in development, to serve as a useful basis for discussion for the TUDCN, so that it can also define its position on the subject ahead of HLF 4. The paper draws from a variety of sources, including official development institutions, trade unions, NGOs and consultants, etc. It is enriched by the first positions adopted by the various stakeholders, including members of the Network during the last general meeting. 1. Defining the "private sector" 2. The interest in studying the role of the private sector in development effectiveness 3. Forms of private sector involvement in the aid/development system? Companies, aid beneficiaries Public-private partnerships Private financing for development 4. Elements of a trade union position What form should public and democratic regulation of the private sector's activities take? Integrating the principles of development effectiveness in companies' core business Should ODA finance the private sector? 1 | P a g e 1. DEFINING THE PRIVATE SECTOR Defining the private sector is an essential stage in reaching any understanding of current practices and the role the sector should be given in development policies. The efforts hitherto made to give it an official definition have, however, only resulted in a rather vague consensus.
    [Show full text]
  • Informality and Inclusive Green Growth
    Informality and inclusive green growth Evidence from ‘The biggest private sector’ event 25 February 2016, London, UK THE BIGGEST ‘PRIVATE SECTOR’ Acknowledgements The IIED producers of this report would like to thank the event co-hosts and supporters, including the Green Economy Coalition (GEC), Women in Informal Employment: Globalising and Organizing (WIEGO), the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Sahel and West Africa Club (OECD-SWAC) and TearFund. We also extend our thanks to all those who made the event happen including: all our speakers (see page 64); our moderator, Oliver Greenfield, and summariser, Steve Bass; our planning team (Mariam Batchelor, Laura Jenks, Katharine Mansell, Kate Wilson, Emily Benson, Theresa Schultz, Chris Hopkins, Matt Wright, Mike Bird, Bill Vorley, Sian Lewis, Xue Weng and Ethel del Pozo); our group of UCL Green Economy Society volunteers; our team of table ‘shepherds’ (Geraldine Galvaing, Katharine Mansell, Matthew McKernan, Laura Jenks, Tessa Jennett, Chris Hopkins and Anna Bolin); and all event participants. WORDS & CREATIVE CONCEPT Sian Lewis | IIED DESIGN & LAYOUT Emily Sadler | www.emilysadler.com ICON CREDITS The Noun Project | www.thenounproject.com P9: “Male” by Egorova Valentina/ P22: “Recycle” by jayson lim Ardiles / “Shield” by Bettina Tan P53: “Checked Document” by “Female Symbol” by Zlatko P25: “Handshake” by Lauren P42: “saw” by Chameleon Design / Creative Stall / “Magnifying Glass” Najdenovski Manninen / “Conversation”
    [Show full text]
  • Consolidating Neoliberalism Through Privatisation: the Case of the EU After the Eurozone Crisis
    ISSN: 1304-7310 (Print) 1304-7175 (Online) http://www.uidergisi.com.tr Consolidating Neoliberalism through Privatisation: The Case of the EU after the Eurozone Crisis Özgün SARIMEHMET DUMAN Dr., Visiting Fellow, London School of Economics and Political Science, Hellenic Observatory, European Institute To cite this article: Sarımehmet Duman, Özgün, “Consolidating Neoliberalism through Privatisation: The Case of the EU after the Eurozone Crisis“, Uluslararasi İliskiler, Vol. 16, No. 63, 2019, pp. 105-118, DOI: 10.33458/uidergisi.621328 To link to this article: https://dx.doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.621328 Submitted: 15 June 2018 Last Revision: 07 May 2019 Published Online: 01 September 2019 Printed Version: 01 September 2019 Uluslararası İlişkiler Konseyi Derneği | International Relations Council of Turkey Uluslararası İlişkiler – Journal of International Relations E-mail : [email protected] All rights of this paper are reserved by the International Relations Council of Turkey. With the exception of academic quotations, no part of this publication may be reproduced, redistributed, sold or transmitted in any form and by any means for public usage without a prior permission from the copyright holder. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the author(s)’s and do not reflect those of the Council , editors of the journal, and other authors. Consolidating Neoliberalism through Privatisation: The Case of the EU after the Eurozone Crisis Özgün SARIMEHMET DUMAN Dr., Visiting Fellow, London School of Economics and Political Science, Hellenic Observatory, European Institute, London, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT This article offers an inquiry into the increasing importance of privatisation policies in the European Union (EU).
    [Show full text]